I agree with pretty much all of this, especially the last two paragraphs.
That last comparison also highlights that the argument against abortion in the popular space is overwhelmingly deontological, rather than consequentialist; it revolves around whether āfoetuses are peopleā or not, and therefore whether āabortion is murderā or not, with the assumption granted (on both sides) that murder is automatically wrong. Which is why the popular space doesnāt make the link between women having abortions and women simply choosing not to have children.
And if you are deontological in your thinking, the argument about moral uncertainty is pretty strong; a 10% chance (say) of committing murder sounds terrible.
But for me personally, as Iāve become more consequentialist in my thinking (which EA has been a part of, though not the only part), itās actually pushed me more and more pro-abortion.
And if you are deontological in your thinking, the argument about moral uncertainty is pretty strong; a 10% chance (say) of committing murder sounds terrible. But for me personally, as Iāve become more consequentialist in my thinking (which EA has been a part of, though not the only part), itās actually pushed me more and more pro-abortion.
I think this is missing the point of the post. Iām sure you are pretty consequentialist in your thinking, so am I. But are you certain that consequentialism is the correct moral theory? Such certainty seems implausible, there are lots of examples where consequentialism is in favour of things that seem crazy. If you do have some credence in moral theories that ban murder, and that include abortion as a case of murder, you are going to have to take that into account if you wish to act morally.
Maybe Iām misunderstanding you, but I actually donāt think I missed that point at all if you read to the end of my post.
The whole point is that Iām not certain that consequentialism is correct but that my internal probability of it being so has been sharply rising, which is why āas Iāve become more consequentialist in my thinking...itās actually pushed me more and more pro-abortionā. The āmoreā implies lack of certainty/āconviction here both for my current and (especially) my past self.
Iām claiming that deontology broadly provides more of the anti-abortion arguments than consequentialism does, certainly in the popular space. So itās reasonable for more consequentialist groups (like EAs) to be more pro-abortion.
If your only point is that people with greater degrees of consequence should be more pro-abortion, then I would agree. However, I interpreted your comment as also saying or implying that you were, in fact, pro-abortion, which is of course different (and I apologise if you didnāt imply this).
I agree with pretty much all of this, especially the last two paragraphs.
That last comparison also highlights that the argument against abortion in the popular space is overwhelmingly deontological, rather than consequentialist; it revolves around whether āfoetuses are peopleā or not, and therefore whether āabortion is murderā or not, with the assumption granted (on both sides) that murder is automatically wrong. Which is why the popular space doesnāt make the link between women having abortions and women simply choosing not to have children.
And if you are deontological in your thinking, the argument about moral uncertainty is pretty strong; a 10% chance (say) of committing murder sounds terrible.
But for me personally, as Iāve become more consequentialist in my thinking (which EA has been a part of, though not the only part), itās actually pushed me more and more pro-abortion.
I think this is missing the point of the post. Iām sure you are pretty consequentialist in your thinking, so am I. But are you certain that consequentialism is the correct moral theory? Such certainty seems implausible, there are lots of examples where consequentialism is in favour of things that seem crazy. If you do have some credence in moral theories that ban murder, and that include abortion as a case of murder, you are going to have to take that into account if you wish to act morally.
Maybe Iām misunderstanding you, but I actually donāt think I missed that point at all if you read to the end of my post.
The whole point is that Iām not certain that consequentialism is correct but that my internal probability of it being so has been sharply rising, which is why āas Iāve become more consequentialist in my thinking...itās actually pushed me more and more pro-abortionā. The āmoreā implies lack of certainty/āconviction here both for my current and (especially) my past self.
Iām claiming that deontology broadly provides more of the anti-abortion arguments than consequentialism does, certainly in the popular space. So itās reasonable for more consequentialist groups (like EAs) to be more pro-abortion.
If your only point is that people with greater degrees of consequence should be more pro-abortion, then I would agree. However, I interpreted your comment as also saying or implying that you were, in fact, pro-abortion, which is of course different (and I apologise if you didnāt imply this).